The Internet as a News Source

The prominence of the Internet as the main source of news for people has been building up since its conception in the 1990s. In the age of smartphones, it is more accessible than finding a newspaper or turning on the TV. The Internet is a platform that allows anyone with a computer to broadcast their thoughts and opinions, hence the rise of blogging. There is nothing wrong with blogging – every citizen has the right to freedom of speech. In my opinion, blogging is a great learning experience. Allowing other citizens to support or criticize your blog posts can give you a more nuanced outlook on any given topic. The “blogosphere” is a way for citizens to connect or clash over important issues that likely affect day to day life; the freedom to engage in debate is crucial to our democratic society.

One argument that Anderson addresses (in “South Park Conservatives”) is that the Internet and the “blogosphere” create bubbles of the “news we want, not the news we need”. He believes this to be false and counters this argument by stating that “[it is] just democratic debate in action”. I think he is correct to an extent. Bloggers and Op-Ed pieces are not news sources, they are opinion-based. Democratic debate is relevant in the “blogosphere”. It should be completely irrelevant in the news. Sites such as Breitbart (Right-wing) and Slate (Left-wing) claim to be news sites but produce wholly biased material. They are taking advantage of their audiences by not giving them the entire picture, only spoonfeeding them the pieces that support their political views; this creates uninformed citizens with shallow opinions.

The creation of political bubbles is deleterious to our nation and makes civil debate more difficult. In order for more bipartisan (read: successful) policy to come to fruition, the public needs to have a full understanding of what is going on. The real world is multi-faceted, not one-sided. It is entertaining to engage in political discourse with like-minded people, but it does not advance anything meaningful. Blogging is an outlet for citizens to express their opinions and should be encouraged. Biased “news” sites do not promote a well-informed population, but rather create a source of entertainment.

9 Responses to "The Internet as a News Source"

Jackson Krase says:

October 27, 2017 at 1:54 pm

I found your analysis of the internet’s role as a news source to be highly informative and helps shed some light on the rising influence that the internet plays in the daily lives of millions of Americans. It is no secret that the introduction of the world wide web has changed the manner in which news is presented to the American population. According to a PEW Research Poll conducted in August of 2017, the division between people who get their news from television and from those who receive their news from the internet continues to narrow. “As of August, 43% of Americans report often getting news online, just 7 percentage points lower than the 50% who often get news on television.” This data shows the expanding influence that the internet has in regards to the reporting of news and the dangers of increased polarization within the online community.
In addition, I strongly agree with your statement that blogging serves as a means for citizens to express their viewpoints and should be encouraged. Blogs are powerful in that they allow for a basis of discussion across a wide-variety of political topics and promote a collective competition for ideas to be judged and developed. However, as critics of the “blogosphere” are quick to point out, there is a low barrier of entry into the blogging community which could lead to the publishing of unvalidated news. Gareth Lewis covers this complex situation in his article titled Blogging Democracy: The Contribution Of Political Blogs To Democracy, where he argues that even though low barriers of entry allow almost any individual with a computer and an opinion to write a blog, the blogosphere exists within an “ a self-correcting environment” and thus will constantly change and adapt to the voices of its readers.

PEW Research Poll: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/07/americans-online-news-use-vs-tv-news-use/
Link to Lewis Article: https://www.friends.ca/pub/12031
Katherine Fell says:

October 27, 2017 at 4:49 pm

You both make very good points about the prominence of blogs and the internet in today’s current political climate. Blogs and the internet tend to create “bubbles” as you previously mentioned, but I think that the most important aspect of the new age of technology and media in politics is how fast and accessible this information is. It connects people all over the world, and while this facilitates the spreading of ideas and conversation, it can also have enormous consequences. One instance in which this was especially true was during the 2016 election with WikiLeaks and the Democratic Party. WikiLeaks was instrumental in the Clinton email scandal, an issue that was detrimental to her campaign and very well could have been the reason why she lost the election. WikiLeaks also released damaging information about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee, revealing the party’s bias towards Clinton over Sanders during the primaries. This created unrest within the party and hurt Clinton in the public eye, as people were already calling her untrustworthy. This just goes to show how our connection and reliance on the internet can have massive repercussions in a way that would have been impossible to predict.
Yanbin Zhang says:

October 28, 2017 at 8:02 pm

It is an really interesting point of view to analyze the internet as a new source. It is apparently that the internet and the application of it like blog and social media is playing an more and more important role in the news spreading in such digital age. Social media becomes so important not only because it makes people more informative and accessible to address their own people, but also because it fundamentally changes the structure of news media. In the past before the internet came into stage, there is a top-down model in the society that the mainstream news media would monopolize the right to choose news resource, select news reporting and direct the need of ordinary people. The public were more likely to accept what they heard and would take it serious about what news media want. Yet, in the digital age, the structure is more open to people and transform to a loop model. Ordinary people also could address their ideas and spread news as the source. The news media is no longer the only one to report the news. More importantly, currently people are acquiring the ability to choose what they want to hear among the millions of path of information. It creates such pressure for the news media to ensure the accuracy of information and neutralize their standing to have more audience. It has become a great tool to break the enclosed structure of news media controlled by few consortiums.
Another fundamental function of the social media is to supervise the intertwinement between the government and the news media. The public used to only be able to accept the news they hear from the news media and they were easily blocked out about what’s really going in in government since the news media would cooperate with government or particular party to manipulate the news reporting, as return, news media would benefit from the government on relevant policy and subsidies. Additionally, there is no such comprehensive law of press and strict censorship to news media from the government. The social media could complement such blank. Since people are more accessible and informative, the public could play an more important role to supervise both the government and the news media. Meanwhile, the social media could effectively enhance the interaction between the ordinary people and the government or the news media.
Lilly Alemayehu says:

October 29, 2017 at 4:35 pm

I think the main problem with the blogosphere, as mentioned by Anderson, is that anyone can have access to an audience in sharing information which they believe to be true. The reason these political bubbles are created is that people are more likely to visit news websites and blog sites that appeal to and agree with their interests and beliefs. This is what creates political bubbles because although there is some give and take in the interactions that occur on these blogs, the collective gain is much less than it would be if these sites were all inclusive and promoted the sharing of ideas across the political spectrum. Also, there’s the aspect that people who are using these mediums to get their voices heard tend to be those who aren’t already represented in popular media sources, and they thereby tend to have more radical or extreme beliefs. It’s obvious why this would cause a problem as they probably aren’t looking to gain from other perspectives through their interactions with internet news sources. They want to spread their own perspective and boths sides share these ideals which is further polarizing.
Kevin Todd says:

October 29, 2017 at 9:09 pm

I think you bring up very interesting information in your argument regarding the use of the internet for blogging and presenting news. I think that blogging is very useful to an extent. I agree with the fact that it allows for people to share their insights on certain topics and helps enhance the ability to gain knowledge in those topics. In the “South Park Conservatives” I think it was significant that Anderson brought up cyber-balkanization. It is a problem when people go to websites and automatically think their views are right towards a certain topic just because the blogger or writer shared a similar outlook. I think blogging is effective when it brings a variety of different perspectives towards subjects but ineffective when those perspectives don’t share quality facts and information towards sharing their ideas to the public.
This has been extremely evident in the past year and a half due to the presidential election and debates leading up to it. It results in society to receive information that is biased and lacks true facts. Donald Trump has gone at the media and some sources in labeling them as “fake news” based on how they present their information to the public and what they include in their stories. I think as a result of this people have taken different approaches in deeming what is a credible source of information and what isn’t since blogs tend to be very opinionated and biased.
Marcin Jerzewski says:

October 29, 2017 at 9:32 pm

I find your blog post to be an interesting contribution to the debate on whether the Internet is undermining the Fourth Estate role of the press in the United States and other liberal democratic societies. From my point of view, the most interesting aspect of this issue is the question whether we should consider the Internet as a phenomenon which competes with traditional new media, or rather a brand-new space for networking individuals. Anderson’s argument that the blogosphere “[is] just democratic debate in action” made me ponder over the notion of “The Fifth Estate,” which has gained prominence in the academic community over the last few years. For instance, William H. Dutton, the Quello Professor of Media and Information Policy in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University, has argued that the Fifth Estate goes beyond the “blogosphere,” or an extension of the traditional media, but actually constitutes a community of “networked individuals” enabled by the Internet – social media serves as a case in point here – in ways that can hold the other estates accountable (Dutton 2009). I believe that if we consider the ever-important role of the Internet in the political process of the contemporary United States using the framework proposed by Dutton, we will come to learn that expansion of virtual communications can actually be very beneficial. The “Fifth Estate” expands the set of tools available to citizens to scrutinize the actions of their representatives. Certainly, it ought to be born in mind that the emergence of “fake news” and more generally, “post-truth” may emphasize the darker side of this development. Internet-mediated communication is frequently deemed culpable for the ongoing crisis of liberal democracy, characterized by sharpened polarizations and corrupt intellectual integrity (see, eg., Al-Rodhan 2017). What I find problematic is that both, senders and receivers of virtual communications seem to have failed to recognize, as Dutton argues, that Internet platforms are not just extensions of traditional media. The “Fifth Estate” has the potential to democratize public discourse and give voice to those who previously remained unheard. The networked individuals enabled by the Internet can be more prone to expose abuses of power, call for grassroots mobilization or express their concerns. However, in order for us to seize the benefits of the newly emerged “Fifth Estate,” we need to perceive it as its own entity, and not just an extension of traditional media channels.

Further reading:
Al-Rodhan, Nayef. “Post-Truth Politics, the Fifth Estate and the Securitization of Fake News,” Global Policy Journal Blog, July 7th. http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/07/06/2017/post-truth-politics-fifth-estate-and-securitization-fake-news [Accessed October 28, 2017]
Dutton, William H. 2009. “The Fifth Estate Emerging through the Network of Networks,” Prometheus 27 (1): 1-15.
Reid Chenault says:

October 29, 2017 at 11:12 pm

I think blogging is an increasingly popular activity that citizens partake in in order to express their views on certain issues. I do not think these blogs are a good source for any factual news information because of the fact that anyone can put anything out there. This becomes the problem with “internet news” and creates some confusion when it comes to identifying viable sources. Anyone can get online and create a site that states their opinion on the current political issues, however that is not what was intended by the framers for what news should be. These men wanted the news source to report important political information to the citizens that would allow the populous to be more informed and better able to participate in politics. Instead, the news has turned into strictly things that these larger corporations feel that would make the most money for them. The online aspect should allow for these news sources to easily report and present the necessary political information to the public. In the 21st century, the using the internet is like second nature, so in order to educate the public these corporations need to focus on putting the proper information out there and not worry so much about the social controversy in the world.
Adam Samee says:

October 30, 2017 at 11:01 am

I disagree with Anderson about the internet creating bubbles of the “news we want, not the news we need” because it is a person’s free will. The internet does not do this alone without human consent. People have to physically create these irrelevant news stories. People may read these but the way he explains is as if the people do not have an option to find real and informative news. It is crucial for people to learn about opinion and fact in regards to the internet because it is easy for them to be mislead. The only realistic solution would be to educate people on finding and interpreting real news online. If we were to limit people and filter their viewings, it would contradict our democracy and freedom of speech and press. Your closing point on entertainment comparing to news is interesting in our culture today. Many people would rather escape their lives by reading on a celebrities’ rather than to read news and interpret their own lives while creating their own opinions.
Alexandra Friedman says:

October 30, 2017 at 1:11 pm

There is no question that people like to hear views that they agree with. But, sometimes, we forget the importance of listening to the other side. In the past, it was often easier to avoid extremist opinions. Of course there were news networks that did tend to lead one way or another. But, in general, our media would serve the purpose of reporting true and relevant facts. Yet, in today’s society, there prevalence of these extreme blogs has grown greatly. The problem is that no one is benefiting from these one sided view points. People are just turning to the news that they want to hear, and reinforcing their own views. While only hearing one side of things is bad in its own, it is particularly harmful for those with extreme view points. This is what is going to and has torn America apart. Of course, we should want what is best not only for ourselves but for our fellow citizens. In order to do this, we need to be informed of more that one view point. While some of the major news networks at least pretend to respect of the views of the other side, the blogosphere does not meet the same requirement. Instead, they want to say controversial things in order to gain attention. Then, who is benefitting from these blogs and from the new age of news? In my opinion, not many people. Instead we are hurting ourselves, our fellow citizens, and our country. We need to recognize this and reevaluate where we get our news.

Comments are closed.